It just doesn't seem to be worth the cost to me. I don't have a problem with restricting foods or calories as I can cook up something tasty with almost anything, but as shown in the example at the end of the article, lifestyle seems to suffer.
The "typical" calorie restricting individual presented at the end of the article is woman who is 5'6" tall and weighs 110lbs. She mentions that she gave up running so she didn't lose too much weight. That's not a lifestyle I find fulfilling nor does it seem healthy. She had to cut out physical activity to keep from wasting away.
I want to run around with my kids, go to the gym (I enjoy my time there), jog and play soccer (twice a week). I like being active and my life would be much poorer if I had to give it up just to stay at a "healthy" weight.
Edit: I'd also like to add that I get the same exact benefits of "improved mood, sleep, mental clarity and memory" by choosing the foods I eat carefully, but I do not control the calorie intake. I eat when I'm hungry until I'm full.
> I want to run around with my kids, go to the gym (I enjoy my time there), jog and play soccer (twice a week). I like being active and my life would be much poorer if I had to give it up just to stay at a "healthy" weight.
Running around with your kids and playing soccer doesn't increase your weight, it decreases your weight (unless you have zero muscles and zero fat). That woman was probably not trying to decrease her weight, she was trying to decrease the amount of calories she had to consume.
And do you think that 110lbs at 5'6'' is extraordinarily low? Seems pretty normal to me.
What he said is logical. In order to not lose weight while doing those activities, he needs to eat more calories than if he was not doing those activities. In other words, people who are active eat more. If you want to eat less, you need to be less active.
I think a happy medium between those two is probably your best bet ;)
Seriously though, nothing improves health more than cutting out processed foods, eating farm-fresh meats and veggies, and getting a decent amount of exercise.
"That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of."
Well, he did say "jacked", so it's safe to assume it's not 200 lb of fat.
BTW, I went pretty close to that, while staying at a relatively low 12% BFP (body fat percentage). It's pretty awesome, but I can definitely see why some people would rather not go through the trouble - it's not something easy to accomplish, not if you're a cubicle slave like almost everybody these days.
Oh, I didn't know that jacked means muscular (I thought it has something to do with drugs). How many hours did you spend exercising per day? I think that indeed it's probably not worth it for most people.
If you see exercise as a chore, then no, it wouldn't be worth it. I don't see exercise as a chore, and I am a fit 200 pounds.
I train four days a week in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and MMA. In order to get up to a fit 200 pounds, I've done a lot of strength training over the years, but I enjoy strength training.
Even if someone wouldn't see it as a chore, and I don't know if I would because I don't do it, I have a hard time believing most people would enjoy doing it 2 hours a day. As 6 foot long less than 125 pound (but still definitely above average fit ;) male I could certainly use some weight.
How much strength training do you roughly need to do to add x lbs of muscle per year, assuming you haven't done any strength training? And how much do you need to do to maintain 200 pounds? (in hours per day)
It's not the time spent that matters, it's the quality of the time spent. Intensity matters. A 30 minute intense workout is better than a leisurely 2 hour workout.
There's no real formula. When I started strength training, I knew nothing. I was lean and weighed about 155 pounds. That was about 9 years ago. In about two years I put on 20 pounds so that I was about 175. Over the course of two or so years, I put on about another 10 pounds so that I was usually around 185. Around then I switched my focus to compound lifts like deadlifts and clean & press. I shot up to 195 pounds. Last summer I lifted four days a week and shot up to 205 pounds. Now I walk around closer to 200 because I don't do much strength training. It's mostly grappling and conditioning - things that keep me in shape but they don't add any muscle mass.
A good goal when you start is to do strength training three days a week. That's enough to make progress, but you won't feel like you're always doing it.
I agree completely with the author of this article: focus on compound lifts like squat, deadlift, cleans, overhead press, clean and press. You'll need to invest time to learn how to do these lifts. Doing them properly (that is, in such a way that avoids injury and allows you to add weight) is a skill, and like any skill, you need practice to get good at it.
Also keep in mind that getting stronger and adding muscle mass is an adaptation. You're putting your body under some stress, and your body adapts to the stress by getting stronger. If you keep using the same stress, your body doesn't need to adapt anymore. You need to continually change what you do (more weight, or more reps, different exercises, less rest, etc.) to continue to see improvements.
So 30 min every 2 days, that would work? I don't really have the equipment for most of those exercises, so I'll have to improvise (e.g. backpack filled with heavy stuff for one hand lifting). What can you suggest as exercises that don't require equipment, or only require things that most people have? I might buy stuff later but I'd first want to try out if I like doing it.
Again, it's not about a formula. I can't say "X for y minutes will yield z."
Exercises that don't require any weights are pull-ups, dips, squats (with no load, obviously), burpees (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4H92emcabA ; harder than you think). All of these exercises will increase your strength at first, but eventually it'll just increase your conditioning. That is, once you're at the point that you can do, say, three pull-ups, being able to do more pull-ups won't add any muscle mass. It'll increase your conditioning (your body's ability to continue doing something), which is good, but you won't put on weight.
Really, if you want to add muscle mass, you need to lift heavy things.
Also, I have to agree that if you are indeed 6 foot, 125 pounds is startlingly thin. Have you ever had a doctor check if you have, perhaps, a hormonal problem that makes it difficult to keep weight on?
Thanks for the exercises. I'm going to try pull ups tomorrow on a tree branch, but I'm pretty sure I can do more than 3 (I might be overly confident though). Squats seem a little too easy too without weight, but I can a backpack as weight? What do you think about push ups (with backpack)? Lifting a backpack with 1 arm? Is 3 about the right amount of times you should be able to do something? So increase weight until you can only do it 3 times? That would be almost impossible to do with a backpack for squats...anyway squats seem to be focused on the legs and my legs are already relatively big.
> Have you ever had a doctor check if you have, perhaps, a hormonal problem that makes it difficult to keep weight on?
No I have not seen a doctor. You guys seem to think that it's weird thin but I know a lot of people who weigh less than that, and even more people who look thinner. I think if you are not muscular and don't have much fat you weigh about that much.
When was the last time you stepped on a scale? If a man who is 6 foot is 140 pounds, I would call him "skinny." I think a 6 foot man who is under 125 pounds is underweight. Also, your legs aren't "big" if you weight less than 125 pounds.
You're taking my advice too literally. You're grasping onto the numbers and thinking "Aha! These are the magic numbers I need to hit." It doesn't work that way. You asked what kind of strength training you can do without weights. There's lots of strength-conditioning you can do without weights, but it won't add muscle mass. I was trying to explain the difference between increasing your muscular endurance and increasing your absolute strength.
You're looking for a formula. There is none. If you want to get stronger and put on weight, there's a lot you have to learn about how your body reacts to the various kinds of stresses. Some resources for learning more:
> When was the last time you stepped on a scale?
> I think a 6 foot man who is under 125 pounds is underweight.
Umm, I don't know? A couple of weeks ago? I guess I am underweight by the BMI measure, but I've been like that all my life and my BMI now is higher than ever so I don't really worry about it.
> Also, your legs aren't "big" if you weight less than 125 pounds.
That's true, I meant relative to other muscles. All exercise I do do is primarily legs, so it may be better to focus on the rest as my legs get exercised during running & cycling. The upper body is also more important visually ;)
> It doesn't work that way.
I understand, but it's good to have a ballpark figure to see if something is going to be effective or not. For example if I do 30 push ups, is that going to help or is it better to add an extra weight at that point?
Edit: I just filled my backpack with as many books as possible (that's probably about 30-40 pounds) and I can do 28 push ups, but then I'm completely weak for a few minutes. So would you suggest doing this exercise, or get a better weight?
First of all, hours in the gym doesn't mean anything.
It's more about diet -- 6ft/sub 125lb is sickly wire thin. You are living a lie if you consider yourself fit or healthy when you are malnourished, underweight and underdeveloped.
Start eating more. As an ectomorph you will have no problem shedding fat so you can pretty much stuff your face with cals every 2 hours.
Also, as an ectomorph, you need to get in and out of the gym as fast as possible so you don't burn too many cals. I suggest a beginner 5x5 program. Also, STAY AWAY FROM CARDIO.
> You are living a lie if you consider yourself fit or healthy
Nah, I think I'm fine. I run 7 miles every two days, and cycle nearly every day. I'm not going to stop doing that as I enjoy it and because I don't have a car. I look pretty normally muscular, perhaps even a bit more than the average guy and don't look very thin.
> Start eating more.
Perhaps, but I don't like eating when I'm full. What I ate today: 3 slices of bread with butter and cheese, 4 tomatoes, 3 pears and half a melon and some yogurt with sugar. Dinner: salad of 3.5 peppers & 1 zucchini with plenty of olive oil, pork (100-200 grams I think?) fried with oil and cream & mushroom sauce, pasta, cheese, and again yogurt with sugar (I omitted things that don't contain calories). So what do you suggest?
BTW ectomorph is a funny name, it sounds like an insect.
"Dreams of eternal youth feature in many cultures throughout history, but it was only in the 20th century that research into longevity really began."
I seem to recall learning about ancient Chinese emperors entertaining Daoist 'priests' who offered them elixirs designed to extend their lifespans, sometimes indefinitely. If by "research" they mean "contemporary scientific research," their statement is a tautology.
"Chinese alchemy is a part of the larger tradition of Taoism (although some argue it has longer history than Taoism), centers on the tradition of body-spirit cultivation that developed through the Chinese understandings of medicine and the body. These Chinese traditions were developed into a system of energy practices. Chinese alchemy focuses mainly on the purification of one's spirit and body in the hopes of gaining immortality through the practice of Qigong and/or consumption and use of various concoctions known as alchemical medicines or elixirs, each of which having different purposes."
Just because their research didn't lead to correct conclusions doesn't mean it wasn't research.
If by "research" they mean "contemporary scientific research," their statement is a tautology.
How so? Scientific research on many subjects dates back to the ~17th century or so, so I'm not sure how it's a tautology to say that scientific research on a particular subject didn't begin until the 20th.
Unless you mean that the "contemporary" bit is a tautology, but you just inserted that word yourself.
Just because their research didn't lead to correct conclusions doesn't mean it wasn't research
But what if it didn't use the correct methods? I think it's fair to restrict the definition of "research" to methods which are likely to lead you towards the right answer rather than the much older method of "just making shit up".
My point was that "research" dates back well before the 17th century. If you insist upon research meaning "scientific research" the scientific method goes back to at least Aristotle. Scientific standards were different at different points in time - you appear to have drawn the line at the 17th century.
But I believe the alchemists who were working on elixirs for eternal life both in the Western world and in ancient China (pre-Aristotle) were performing a type of research as well in that they presumably used some sort of trial and error to determine the efficacy of their elixirs and modified their behavior based on the results. That is, I do not believe that they would continue to repeatedly administer an elixir that caused immediate death in the unshaken belief that it was truly an elixir for immortality. Such a process of trial and error constitutes "research" in my opinion, although it would have been primitive research by our standards.
> I think it's fair to restrict the definition of "research" to methods which are likely to lead you towards the right answer rather than the much older method of "just making shit up".
It depends on how strict you are with the meaning of the word "research".
Stone Age people, by that token, were just "making shit up", but that didn't prevent them from discovering fire, etc.
The alchemists were simply using the best tools available to them. Primitive, from our perspective? Yes. That doesn't mean there wasn't genuine effort involved.
It seems to me that it is a basic survival adaptation. When resources are scarce (no food), you can't support offspring. If you can't support offspring, your species doesn't survive. It would make sense that evolutionary branches where aging processes slow down during a time of scarcity would have an adaptive advantage. They live to breed another day.
Surely individuals who age slowly all the time would have an evolutionary advantage over those who only age slowly in times of starvation? The longer you live the more offspring you can have.
This leads me to suspect that our bodies can't just turn off the aging process.
I won't repeat it all here, but if you're interested by the fight against the diseases of aging/healthy life-extension, check out these videos and books:
The protein theory is bad news for people on low-carbohydrate weight-loss plans like the Atkins diet. "I'd be wary of diets that put a heavy emphasis on protein," says Piper. "It's hard to see how that could be healthy."
Um, how come they forgot about fat? Low-carbohydrate does not equal high-protein. I personally feel best when I get 60-70% of my calorie intake from fats, 15-25% from proteins and the rest from carbs (fruits and veggies).
The "typical" calorie restricting individual presented at the end of the article is woman who is 5'6" tall and weighs 110lbs. She mentions that she gave up running so she didn't lose too much weight. That's not a lifestyle I find fulfilling nor does it seem healthy. She had to cut out physical activity to keep from wasting away.
I want to run around with my kids, go to the gym (I enjoy my time there), jog and play soccer (twice a week). I like being active and my life would be much poorer if I had to give it up just to stay at a "healthy" weight.
Edit: I'd also like to add that I get the same exact benefits of "improved mood, sleep, mental clarity and memory" by choosing the foods I eat carefully, but I do not control the calorie intake. I eat when I'm hungry until I'm full.